On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Adrian
> Yeah, but is there anything else that has led
to more problems in the
> eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community< process to
> officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due
> to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable
> by ArbCom?
>
Well, the answer to the question as posed is
"yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion
relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not
'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down
Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as
actionable.
Yes. These calls seem mostly to be "wahh, we can't actually vote out
admins by getting our mates to say we don't like them" with a notable
lack of detail of actual abuses in their role as an admin that require
de-adminship.
- d.
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community
expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in
cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So
you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon
to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of
heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.